What Other Right Truly Matters? The NRA Misses The Target

In the aftermath of the Newton, Connecticut murders, there is, it seems, far too little rational thought, and far too much emotionalism. Congressional Democrats are desperate to pass draconian gun and accessory ban legislation while people are still sick at heart at this latest manifestation of abject evil. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi even coined a new—and completely nonsensical—term: “assault magazines,” to describe any magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. I suppose “assault ammunition,” and “double secret assault weapons” are next.

“Assault Magazines”

This is to be expected. Progressives can never be satisfied in any of their desires to restrict liberty and to control the lives of others. If a given Progressive policy is an obvious failure, that can never be because it made no sense and was doomed to failure from the outset. On the contrary, any Progressive policy—such as an “assault weapon” ban, an “assault magazines” ban, closing the “gun show loophole,” etc.—that appears to be a failure actually isn’t.

One might point to the decade that the gun and magazine ban were in full effect and the indisputable fact that they—and the rest of the provisions of the Clinton gun ban—accomplished nothing at all for public safety. One might note that Columbine occurred during the run of that foolish law. One might further note that there is no such thing as a “gun-show loophole,” that what Progressives seek to outlaw is actually consensual sales of firearms among adults, even family members, without federal intrusion and approval. And one might go so far as to note that there is little or no evidence criminals buy guns at gun shows, thus exploiting the nonexistent loophole—quite the opposite.

No, none of this can be evidence of the failure of Progressive policy, because Progressives—morally and intellectually superior beings that they are—are incapable of error. What is actually happening is that the involved Progressive policies simply haven’t had enough time to work their wonders. A mere decade? A drop in the temporal bucket. And if that’s not enough, the apparent failure must be attributed to the fact that an insufficient amount of the policy in question has been applied, or it has not been applied with sufficient ferocity.

Lo and behold, Senator Diane Feinstein—who, by the way, has one of the very few concealed carry permits allowed by California authorities (her life is worth far more than the God and gun clingers in flyover country, or California, for that matter)—plans to introduce a bill that will improve on the Clinton law by banning just about every semiautomatic rifle or anything looking like one, known to man.

On 12-21-12—the day the world was supposed to end—Wayne LaPierre of the NRA argued for something that would not destroy liberty and infringe on a fundamental American right, but would be entirely impractical:

I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.

Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, a union that wants to federalize entrance examinations for the teaching profession with education unions in charge responded, accusing LaPierre’s proposal of being:

irresponsible and dangerous’ and accused the group of not seriously addressing gun violence.

‘Schools must be safe sanctuaries, not armed fortresses,’ she said in a statement.

Other progressives, in Congress and out, were similarly dismissive, no doubt because LaPierre’s proposal would not damage the Second Amendment and empower—maybe–Federal bureaucrats and politicians.

There are, however, other reasons to think LaPierre’s solution ill-considered and unworkable:

(1) It’s simply too expensive. Estimates for placing at least one armed police officer in each of the 100,000 and more schools in America would cost five billion and more a year. Single officers would not be sufficient, as replacements would be necessary for officers who take vacation, are sick, are in court, have to transport people to jail, etc. In addition, schools are not open only during normal business hours. To place an officer in a school, at football games, at plays, and the myriad other activities when and where schools are open would take multiple security officers, greatly increasing costs.

And who would hire and pay these officers? Local law enforcement agencies are facing hard times at the best of times and most are woefully understaffed. They simply can’t afford to hire multiple officers for the schools in their communities. In many cases, they’d be doubling—and more—their annual budgets, which is plainly impossible. School districts are in no better financial shape.

(2) It’s training overkill. The plan is essentially an effort to place a single firearm in each school to counter armed attackers. Police officers undergo extensive and expensive training—firearms proficiency is only a small part—because of the wide range of tasks they must accomplish. The abilities necessary to successfully confront and accurately shoot an attacker to stop their attack, hopefully before it takes a single life—are far less time-consuming to teach and maintain. Armed citizens, particularly concealed carry licensees, do it successfully every day.

(3) Some schools do have police officers, but not as people think. They’re commonly called “liaison officers,” or “school resource officers.” However, considering the sheer number of schools, they’re uncommon, most full-time officers being assigned only to larger high schools. More commonly patrol officers “adopt” a number of schools and try to stop by once a week or so, which is more or less a public relations ploy. Even officers primarily stationed in high schools have daily duties that have little to do with guarding the premises or being omnipresently available to attack school shooters.

(4) It’s tempting to the Federal Leviathan. LaPierre called for federal funding to implement his proposal. And where, pray tell, will the brokest nation in world history come up with this funding, and what could possibly go wrong? It takes little effort to imagine a TSA-like bureau of Federal School Police, adding not tens of billions, but hundreds of billions to the deficit, and doing their jobs with the tact, professionalism and stunning ability of the TSA, famous for all but raping little girls and strip searching crippled, elderly women in wheelchairs.

If Mr. LaPierre wants to support teachers, protect them and their charges, and actually save lives, he’ll support concealed carry by teachers and other school staff. Teachers are already present, not only during normal school hours, but at every school related event.

By requiring teachers to be concealed carry licensees on their own dime, the cost to schools will be negligible. By publicizing the fact that the schools do have armed teachers and other staff, but purposely saying nothing about where, how many, or their identities, a powerful deterrent is established, even for schools that have no one carrying. But in reality, the more armed adults able to resist armed attackers, the better.

We are not talking about a matter of philosophy. We are not arguing “sending messages,” or quibbling about the way things ought to be. We are talking about how, at the time and place an armed killer enters a school intent on mass murder, best to immediately stop that killer. All else, particularly gun and magazine bans are like trying to stop traffic accidents by banning some makes and models of cars and by limiting horsepower.

Only those present and armed when and where an attack begins can stop a shooter, and the more of them, the more likely the attacker will be stopped. At Sandy Hook Elementary School, the school was equipped with a remotely opened door system, but the door—like virtually all such doors and systems installed in schools—was not hardened with ballistic glass or Lexan windows. The killer simply shot his way though the glass in a matter of seconds. Had the principal or office staff been armed, they could actually have ended the attack then and there before anyone was hurt. Return gunfire might well have put the killer to flight even if he was not immediately stopped. Instead, a brave female principal was forced to rush the killer empty handed, with predictably tragic results.

Progressives have already rejected this sole, effective, and inexpensive solution out of hand. It does nothing to destroy liberty or increase their power, and their other nonsensical and even dangerous proposals haven’t been imposed with sufficient fervor or for a sufficiently long time. The head of the NRA should know better. By arguing around what he surely knows is the only policy that demonstrably can and will save lives, he plays into the hands of those who would destroy everything he, the NRA, and law abiding Americans cherish most, particularly, the right to self defense.

Without that right, without the actual ability to protect the lives of children at the moment their lives need protection, what other right truly matters?

42 thoughts on “What Other Right Truly Matters? The NRA Misses The Target”

I do not agree with that sentiment. It is true that tragedy has been prevented when there have been other guns available.

Almost all of the recent attacks have occurred in gun free zones. Please think about that.

Even here in Australia, where there are shootups almost every day in Sydney, the guns are obtained illegally.

The issue is not the guns though, it is mental illness. Something needs to be done about being able to identify the mentally ill and having them committed before they go on a rampage. The latest case in Arizona might give you a better clue.

BTW Andrew Leigh, the idiot who has been making a lot of noise about his research is still clueless when it comes to the USA. He is also clueless about Climate Change and thank heavens he is no longer my rep in the House of Representatives (because i did not vote for that idiot in the first place)

1735099a
Discussion with you begins with the knowledge that you are ignorant of the facts, so understand that. You can read Mr. McDaniel’s recent articles that cite specific instances in which people armed with handguns were directly responsible for preventing continued shootings in school settings. Read first, then volunteer opinions.

Prevented != “preventing continued shootings”. Once its happening in a school, the “prevented” descriptor is officially done, unless you are talking about general prevention in which I also have a rock that repels tigers, as evidenced by me not being attacked by a tiger.

If that one doesn’t suit you, here’s another more recent event, where a family with small children was protected by a gun. Attacks like this are usually over well before police can get to the scene, and there may be no time to call 911.

Note also that the national media ignores incidents like this one. Not enough blood to dance in maybe?

You are quoting isolated incidents in the face of decades of data clearly showing that the USA has the highest rate of gun deaths per head of population in the civilised world.
Currently, it stands at about 10 times the rate in Australia. Comparable cultures, comparable crime rates – but the big difference is gun ownership rates.
I carried a semi-auto in Vietnam as an infantryman. These weapons were issued to us to kill. That was their purpose. They are not a toy and should not be in the hands of anyone except the military.

You are not capable of offering an informed opinion. You are not only a moron but a liar.

The vast majority of gun deaths in America are by handguns that are semi-automatic only the sense that you can fire repeatedly without reloading. Automatic weapons are weapons that will fire multiple times with one pull of the trigger. Get it?

The standard issue weapon for ground troops in Vietnam was select-fire. You were never there.

I was a rifleman in 5 Platoon B Coy 7 RAR in 1970, serving in Phouc Tuy province. I carried a self loading L1A1 7.62. It had a 20 round mag. It wasn’t designed to fire full auto, but we often filed the seer down which made full auto possible, although it wasn’t very accurate in this configuration. I was also trained on the M16 and the M72 LAW.
Our section weapon was the M60 which used the same round as the SLR.
We made sure we gave all American units a wide berth. They were poorly trained, their morale, leadership and fire discipline was poor, and there as much a danger to friendlies and themselves as they were to the VC.
Not much has changed in 40 years. Americans with guns are a bigger danger to themselves than ever, and a look at the firearm fatality rate compared with similar countries makes this abundantly clear.

@ Roger
I’m not sure whether you are a Yank, or an Australian, but you are no credit to either, given your propensity for abuse.
“You are not only a moron but a liar”
If you lack the capacity to debate without abuse, you need to go back to school, or perhaps seek some help for your obvious anger management issues. With that in mind, I sincerely hope you’re not a gun owner.
I assume you call me a liar, because you claim I did not serve in Vietnam.
It’s very easily verified. Go here – http://www.vietnamroll.gov.au/VeteranDetails.aspx?VeteranId=1227707
You owe me an apology.

We are controlled by one political party’s ANTI-GUN lobby and legislators. That’s the Democratic Party. You Aussies are good people but you never ask the disarmed victims of crime how they feel about being helpless to defend themselves while relying solely on armed government to ‘protect them.’ The “gun lobby” you refer to is actually a human rights lobby. Here in America there’re still many who believe in the human right of self defense. So your statement won’t get a good reception here.

“It is true that tragedy has been prevented when there have been other guns available”.
Identify one.

That’s your own post I was responding to. I see now you really didn’t want to know — you ask for one, then brush it aside because it’s an “isolated event” and so somehow doesn’t count. It sure counted to those who were protected by proper use of a gun.

Does Australia have the entrenched drug and gang culture that’s grown up here? Does it have the degree of ethnic balkanization the US has? Have you bothered to dig into the statistics to find how much of the gun violence takes place within that demographic, gangs against gangs? Somehow I don’t think you’ll bother. Doesn’t sound as good as platitudes.

“I carried a semi-auto in Vietnam as an infantryman.” Doesn’t make you a constitutional expert. (Did you somehow not qualify for the select-fire version our military used?) It also doesn’t give you any authority to dictate what others can/should have.

It isn’t hard to research the background and meaning of the Second Amendment, which had nothing at all to do with “toys” in the hands of citizens. (Nor is it about sports and hunting.) I don’t think you intend to do that either. So are you going to campaign to confiscate all the semi-auto weapons in the hands of police departments across the country? They aren’t the miliitary last time I checked.

Respond or not as you see fit. I can’t really see much point in continuing to discuss this with you, as I don’t believe you are listening.

“And one might go so far as to note that there is little or no evidence criminals buy guns at gun shows, thus exploiting the nonexistent loophole—quite the opposite.” — I really gotta know, who conducted the exit poll on this one.

Of the gun shows I have been to, I have yet to see some one asking attendees as they are leaving “Are you a criminal that was thwarted in your attempts to aquire a gun, or firearm related accessories?”

While anecdotal evidence is not evidence, it is telling. I recall a co-worker whose spouse was a convicted felon. In various conversations, we talked about them going to the range, gun shows, various trades and purchases that were made, etc. When I asked how it was that fire arms were accesible since the spouse was a convicted felon, the reply was “But I’m not…”.

I make that statement as a result of nearly two decades of practical experience in dealing with criminals. Very few buy weapons at gun shows, most preferring to arm themselves via theft, burglary, buying or bartering stolen weapons from other criminals, etc. This does not mean no criminals might buy a gun at a gun show, but why spend the money when you can get guns for free?

The issue remains whether such measures will actually be effective in reducing crime, rather than in reducing liberty for the law abiding. As always, it’s clear this particular issue–closing the “gun show loophole” will not

The enumerated moron from a foreign land is so fixated on guns that he misses the major point. The FBI SHR data shows that in the last three decades, twenty-five thousand young children from one to eleven years old have been murderred in the US. Only four thousand of these children were killed with guns. An additional ten thousand infants were also murderred. Virttually none of them were murderred with guns. That is a total of thirty thousand infants and young children who have been murderred without guns. You haven’t heard Pres Obama and the Democrat party say anything about these murders of young children because they can not be exploited to advance their political agenda.

The FBI SHR data also reveals that it isn’t some psychopathic stranger that murders young children. Almost all child killers are either family members (mom or putative father) or male “acquaintances” (mom’s new boyfriend).

The most obvious risk factor for becoming a homicide victim as an infant or young child is being Black. Black people are about five times as likely to murder their children as the rest of the population. Of course the increased risk is not the result of genetics for skin pigmentation. The risk is a result of fractured families and failed social policies that result in most Black children being born to single mothers or to families with a putative father who has reason ton question paternity.

For every child that is murderred, there are many more that survive being abused emotionally, psychologically, physically and sexually. Is it any mystery why adolescent and young adult Black, males grow up to commit homicides at a rate nearly a hundred times greater than the rest of the population? Blacks commit homicides at such an astounding rate that the US murder rate would be about normal if you excluded Black homicides from the statistics.

A comment about suicides is in order. If guns cause suicide, why is it thatnthe Uas has one of the lowest suicide rates in the industrialized world? The simple fact I’d that when guns are unavailable, people can and do kill themselves by other means.

You will not hear Pres Obama and his minions discussing the tens of thousands of homicides and suicides that bare committed without guns because their deaths cannot be exploited tobadvance a political agenda.

Because “blame the blacks” isn’t a solution, either. Nor is “Black control”, “black regulation”, or “black waiting periods”. Dare I say, its about as feasible solution as “gun control”. Real solutions require a lot of time, patience, and money. Those are somethings Americans (by and large)are not willing to spend (in bulk) on some one other than themselves.

The true irony of your post is that the President (arguably the most powerful person in the free world) came from some of the various pitfalls you discuss related to “blacks” and broken homes.

No, Obama was not raised like a black kid in ghetto Detroit or Chicago was. He was raised white, or when not, attended schools with upper-class Indonesians. He then attended the most exclusive prep school in Hawaii, far from black kids, and then rode the affirmative action wave over mediocre grades to exclusive schools, all far from ghetto kids. I assume he married as he did to gain credentials for a career. Sorry about that, but–damn!

No, “real” solutions as you envision, and beyond the smoke of “time, patience, and money,” have all been attempted. Billions, literally billions, have been poured into affirmative action, public housing, and community programs. Billions more will not solve the problem.

Besides, too many interests are vested in maintaining the black dependent class. That class is worth billions and a lot of power to others who live far from them and who keep their kids far from them.

“Billions more will not solve the problem.” — So billions less it is then. Along with less time and patience on the matter.

I am pretty sure we know how that will work out.

“Besides, too many interests are vested in maintaining the black dependent class.” — this literally in one fell swoop negates every argument I have ever heard about a victim class. It single handedly validates that yes, there is “the man”, and he is indeed attempt to hold you back to “his” own benefit.

No, it has been observed by others far wiser than I that victim-hood is now a necessary condition, in fact, the natural condition, politically and socially, conserved by politicians of two colors: black and white. What happens to black people when they leave or try to leave the modern state-plantation? It gets pretty nasty because public lessons have to be taught.

I imagine it will have to work its way out eventually. Nothing ever remains the same.

If I had made the point that males, particularly males of a certain age, committed the vast majority of murders, would you have chosen to be offended?

The gender, age and racial disparities in homicide commission rates are undeniable. Equally undeniable is the fact that marital status and the prospects of becoming a husband or father can dramaticly affect the homicide commission rates of males of all races and ages.

As for throwing money at the problem, the most effective effort to reduce Black homicide rates was welfare reform. When we stopped. Paying women to have children out of wedlock, the illegitimacy rates continued to increase but single women, particularly single, black women, started having fewer illegitimate babies and had them later in life. This gave males, particularly black males, an incentive to adopt a more long term strategy for reproductive success.

“If I had made the point that males, particularly males of a certain age, committed the vast majority of murders, would you have chosen to be offended?”–

I can grab you with an more appropriate descriptor:

Poor.

Economics is a much faster way of describing how likely some one is to commit a crime rather than skin color. Regarding welfare reform, I missed the law that said “this reform applies specifically to blacks”. Its still blanket regulations that effect specific portions of an applicable populace.

By that example, regulations and reforms worked. But gun regs and reforms won’t. Interesting.

Actually; poverty is not so closely correlated with crime. The murder rate in the US during the Great Depression was half of what it was during the roaring twenties. The poverty rate for Black families was unarguably higher during the 1950s and 1960s when they were severely victimized economically by racism. However; their homicide rate was not as astoundingly higher than for whites as it is today. It is inarguable that attempts to relieve poverty among Blacks with welfare payments has been a huge contributor to White as well as Black criminality because it undermines family structure and encourages out of wedlock births among young women. If you actually look at the data, welfare reform reduced homicides among Whites as well as Blacks, but was less pronounced. Unfortunately; you would rather demonize people for being racist rather than look at the data.

Rather than use homicide as an excuse to have more wealth transfer payments that will increase homicide, why not address the law enforcement aspect of the equation? FBI data reveals that the historic surge in homicides during the mid 1960s and 1970s was preceded by a sudden decrease in clearance rates for murder and other violent crimes. Interestingly; as homicide rates doubled, the percentage of homicides committed with firearms decreased. The recent, dramatic reduction in violent crime has not been accompanied by a significant increase in clearance rates. Police seem to be content to allow most violent crimes, even murders, remain unsolved even though the reduction in crime rates reduces their caseload so thatnthey have more time andresourcesto devote to each crime.

Have you considerred the possibility that Blacks commit more murders because police are far less likely to make an arrest when Blacks are murdered. Some cops even refer to Black on Black homicide as “misdemeanor murder.

Crime as a whole, KDW. Not just murder. Yes, murder is a crime, but not the only one. Theft, grand theft, B and E, assault, etc. Whole enchilada.

” Unfortunately; you would rather demonize people for being racist rather than look at the data.” — on the topic of what you would rather do than not, please indicate where I am saying you are racist, or demonizing you.

“Have you considerred the possibility that Blacks commit more murders because police are far less likely to make an arrest when Blacks are murdered. Some cops even refer to Black on Black homicide as “misdemeanor murder.

How is that fordiscrimunation?” — Oh, I would contribute that to the perpetuation of the victim class, the cops called “the Man” to see if these folks should be arrested. /sarc off

Because no one cares. Two people in general shoot each other in a back alley, I honestly don’t care what their skin color is when the most likely scenario is “drug deal went wrong”. Even if one limps away to get a bad deal another day, its natural selection in action.

Thanks for the feedback. It astounds me that few criminologists except for John Lott consider the correlation between low clearance rates and increased crime rates. To the best of my knowledge, not even Proff Lott noticed the temporal correlation between the sudden drop in crime clearance rates that occurred during the early 1960s and the equally sudden increase in Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assault and property crimes that began a few years later during the 1960s. This is all well documented in the FBI publications “Crime In The United States,” but few people notice the data on clearance rates towards the back of the book. The FBI specifically advises against inter jurisdictional comparisons, suggesting that is some how unfair to judge police by their job performance.

IMHO, the idea that we shouldn’t worry about someone getting shot or killed in some back alley because a drug deal went bad is heinous. Even if we make the valid point that the thug who gets killed has no socially redeeming value, a failure to vigorously investigate and prosecute such murders sends an eloquent message that other murders will also be accepted. The Black community should be enraged by the racial disparity in clearance rates. IMHO, they have allowed themselves to distracted by efforts to use guns, gun owners and the NRA as scapegoats.

The vested interest is the unholy trinity of gun manufacturers, importers and retailers.
In the name of the almighty dollar, every knee shall bend. In contemporary USA, only two things are worshipped, the dollar. And the gun.

You are correct!! And in Australia, everybody wrestles crocs and goes on walkabout and shears sheep for work and smell like sheep dung. I’ve never lived there, of course, but I know what I am talking about. Just ask me.

You’re kidding, right? You don’t really think gun manufacturers, importers and retailers wield overwhelming political power? They surely don’t imagine that. And while the NRA is indeed the most powerful lobby in America, that is so because it represents more than 4 million members, members who are politically active and vote. But most of all, the NRA supports and defends an essential part of the Bill of Rights. That, in and of itself, is powerful indeed.

I don’t even know the way I finished up right here, however I thought this put up was once great. I don’t understand who you are however certainly you are going to a famous blogger for those who are not already. Cheers!

The NRA missed the public relations and logic target several times. Nothing seems to wake the NRA up – and that’s probably why 95% of gun owners don’t belong to the NRA or actively support NRA policies. The NRA has gotten a little better since LaPierre made his famous (and much ridiculed) statement about providing more armed teachers. But it’s still far short of being the only show in town (ex. GOA, etc) or being smart about promoting the right to self defense.

Thanks, as always,for your comment. I suspect the biggest reason most gun owners don’t belong to the NRA is simple human nature. As long as the more than five million (a new record since Barack Obama took office) NRA members do the work and pay the dues, most people don’t think to join themselves. They reap the benefits of the NRA’s actions, and therefore it is out of sight and out of mind.

As you note, there are surely other Second Amendment organizations out there doing good work, but the NRA is responsible for a very great deal of good. Full disclosure (again) I am an NRA certified instructor and Life Member, as is Mrs. Manor.

I’m told the FBI is implementing a program for schools which emphasizes spotting potentially violent students and dealing with them in a positive way. That program was promoted by Frontline and the NOVA Science documentaries which played the February following the Sandy Hook shooting. In addition: very similar conclusions were reached in now fewer than four books which were available for five years before Sandy Hook. This program takes nothing away from the (obviously correct) arming of teachers as a last resort barrier to school shooters (or mass shooters for that matter). Lanza wasn’t “spotted” as a potential killer and neither was James Holmes. So the program to interdict school shooters wouldn’t catch that minority (although it MIGHT have stopped Holmes). Both this program and arming teachers is ignored. Instead we get non-answers like the ALICE Protocol (nothing more than a more highly coordinated plan to conduct “safety drills” if an active shooter shows up).